Talk:The Beatles/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions about The Beatles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

"and their repertoire ultimately expanded to include a broad variety of pop music." Wouldn't it make more sense for "pop music" to link to the article for Popular music rather than just Pop music? I haven't read the source, but I assume that's what was meant since the band's music used elements of pop, rock, folk, and so on... all of which fit under the umbrella of popular music, but not all of them are in the specific genre of pop music.219.89.224.207 (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you would be fine with that link, good suggestion! Thanks for your input. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Strike comment, pop music is a specific genre, popular music can mean several distinct genres, e.g. rap, rock, country, dance, etcetera. — GabeMc (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that diversity of perspective is a good thing, I'm curious if these recently restored sources are cited to in the actual article? I spent many hours looking for refs in the sources that were not used in the article. Sources not used to cite the article should either be moved to further reading, or deleted, regardless of quality/diversity. — GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I am restoring only sources cited in the actual article. DocKino (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Wrong button. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Gabe's version:

• "Unterberger calls it "on the whole underrated."^[1] He praises McCartney's contributions in particular, including: "Let It Be", "Get Back" and "The Long and Winding Road".^[1] Unterberger calls "the folky 'Two of Us', with John and Paul harmonizing together" a highlight adding, "there are some good moments of straight hard rock in "I've Got a Feeling" and "Dig a Pony"."^[1]

Doc's version:

• "Unterberger calls it "on the whole underrated." He praises McCartney's contributions in particular, including "Let It Be", "Get Back", "'The Long and Winding Road', ruined by Spector's heavy-handed overdubs", and "the folky 'Two of Us', with John and Paul harmonizing together"."^[1]

1) "ruined by Spector's heavy-handed overdubs", an opinion that belongs at the song's page, afterall, the song achieved #1 in the US, so it was hardly ruined, further, McCartney toured using Spector's arrangement for years, indeed when he played it in Vegas in 2009 he was still using it. McCartney's main gripes were that he was not consulted prior, and Spector's use of "female voices", not Spector's orchestral arrangement in general.

2) Failing to mention "I've Got a Feeling" and "Dig a Pony" is to fail to mention any of Lennon's contributions, thus undue weight is given to McCartney here.

3) Per Doc's edit summary, "And one citation is perfectly sufficient here" Per WP:QUOTE, "Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time". I was under the impression that any and every sentence that contains a quote also needs a cite, am I wrong about this? — GabeMc (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) Clearly Unterberger's opinion, though not crucial to maintain the phrase.

(2) "Undue weight"? What? I suppose we could quote an opinion about every song on every album The Beatles ever recorded if we wanted to be certain of avoiding "undue weight". Unterberger focuses on McCartney's contributions and the current edit properly reflects that. The current version indicates Unterberger singles out McCartney's song for "particular" praise—there's no overt or implied denigration of Lennon's work. Recording a critic's opinion on six songs from a single album? That's undue weight.

(3) Yes, you're wrong. If the very next sentence is clearly derived from the very same source—as it very clearly is in this case—there's no need for the double citation. DocKino (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(3) Article prose when it made FA: "Lennon recalled the manager saying, "Look, if you really want to get in these bigger places, you're going to have to change—stop eating on stage, stop swearing, stop smoking."[49] Lennon said, "We used to dress how we liked, on and off stage. He'd tell us that jeans were not particularly smart and could we possibly manage to wear proper trousers, but he didn't want us suddenly looking square. He'd let us have our own sense of individuality ... it was a choice of making it or still eating chicken on stage."[49]

Well, was this in error then, since it's clear that Lennon is being quoted, yet [49] appears at the end of both consecutive sentences? — GabeMc (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

When the article made FA, in November 2009, these errors were included:

• "Hamburg in those days did not have rock'n'roll music clubs. It had strip clubs," says biographer Philip Norman."

Not true, Koshmider's clubs the Indra and the Kaiserkeller were indeed music venues, as was the rival Top Ten Club. — GabeMc (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "after the Indra was closed down due to noise complaints"

Not exactly true, it was closed to rock music performances, but was not closed to strippers. — GabeMc (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "McCartney and Best were arrested for arson a week later when they set fire to a condom hung on a nail in their room; they too were deported"

This claim is sourced to Lewisohn, who in his 2010 edition of his 1992 book, says they set fire to a tapestry, not a condom.

• "Lennon returned to Liverpool in mid-December, while Sutcliffe remained in Hamburg with his new German fiancée, Astrid Kirchherr, for another month"

Incorrect, according to Lewisohn 1992/2010, p.25, Stu stayed in Germany through late-February.

• "When the band appointed Epstein manager in January 1962, Kaempfert agreed to release them from the German record contract."

Error, they were not released from the contract until June of that year, not January.(Winn 2008, p. 10.)

• "Meeting them at the airport, a stricken Kirchherr told them of Sutcliffe's death from a brain haemorrhage.[39]"

How did Kircherr know the cause of death before an autopsy was performed?

• ""Please Please Me" met with a more emphatic reception, reaching number two in the UK singles chart"

Not entirely inaccurate, but it does fail to mention that the song topped five British charts, just not Record Retailer where it stalled at #2.(Lewisohn, 1992, p=351)

• "Released in March 1963, the album reached number one on the British chart."

Which British chart? It topped at least four.(Ibid)

• "Returning to the UK, they were greeted at Heathrow Airport in heavy rain by thousands of fans in "a scene similar to a shark-feeding frenzy"

The low-quality source, (Pawlowski (1990) p. 150.) says "thousands of fans", while the high-quality source, (Lewisohn 2010, pp. 92–92.) says hundreds.

• "Beatles releases in the United States were initially delayed for nearly a year when Capitol Records, EMI's American subsidiary, declined to issue either "Please Please Me" or "From Me to You".[66]"

Error. "Please Please Me/"Ask Me Why" was released in February 1963 in the US by VeeJay records, and "From Me To You"/"Thank You Girl" in May of 1963. (Lewisohn, 1992, p.350)

That's ten errors in the first few sections, that took me only 15 minutes or less to find, it goes on and on. So when we say, "the info was in the article when it made FA", I think that means little. The article should evolve, not devolve/rollback to a preferred version from three years ago. I would wager that an uninvolved admin would tend to agree with me. — GabeMc (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

More.

• "They gave their first live US television performance two days later on The Ed Sullivan Show, watched by approximately 74 million viewers—over 40 percent of the American population."[74][75]

The problem here is, [74] claims "nearly 74 million Americans -- just under half the country, according to the Nielsen ratings" and [75] claims "74 million Americans, or 34 percent of the population". So "over 40 percent of the American population" is a either a WP:SYNTH or a WP:OR. Based on 1960 US census info, 74 million viewers would constutute just "over 40%", however 41% is neither "nearly half" nor "34 percent", in fact it's closer to ⅓ than ½, so both sources offered not only disagree with each other, they also appear to be factually incorrect in and of themselves.

• "Starr was ill for the first half of the tour, and Jimmy Nicol sat in on drums. In August they returned to the US, with a thirty-concert tour of twenty-three cities."[83]

Triple whammy here, 1) Nicol replaced Starr for the first fives dates of a 27-day tour, not 1/2 the tour, at least according to Lewisohn, 1992, p.161. 2) the cite these two sentences are sourced to is (Gould, 2008, p. 249.), which says nothing about Ringo or Nicol, 3) The proper copywrite date for Gould is 2007, not 2008.

• "Composed by McCartney, "Yesterday" would inspire the most recorded cover versions of any song ever written."[101]

The source, [101], says "Yesterday" was "written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon."

• "Presley and the band set up guitars in his living room, jammed together, discussed the music business and exchanged anecdotes."[105]

While the claim agrees with it's source, this is well known to be a complete myth (the jamming), and the Threatles disputed Lennon's account. The only truth is that Elvis was most likley playing bass at some point during the visit.

• "September saw the launch of an American Saturday morning cartoon series featuring the Beatles and echoing A Hard Day's Night's slapstick antics. Two songs were played in each half-hour show, lip-synched by the band members' cartoon counterparts, while voice artists Paul Frees and Lance Percival supplied the characters' regular speaking voices. Original episodes appeared for the next two years, and reruns aired through 1969.[106]"

Trivial.

• "Rubber Soul's introduction of a sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" marked a further progression outside the traditional boundaries of rock music."

The song is not a rock song, it's folk/pop song.

• "According to both Lennon and McCartney, however, it was "just another album".[112]"

Gould (2008) p. 296., says they both "expressed the feeling", but how can one quote be attributed to two people?

• "The coroner ruled Epstein's death an accidental overdose, but it was widely rumoured that a suicide note had been discovered among his possessions.[139]"

There was in fact a suicide note found, but it was from a previous attempt.

• ""I knew that we were in trouble then ... I thought, We've fuckin' had it now."[142]"

Sourced to The Beatles (2000) p. 268., problem is, that source does not include the f-word.

• "Starr quit the band for a period, leaving McCartney to perform drums on several tracks."

Actually, after Starr left, Paul drummed on "Back in the USSR" (along with John and George), and solo on "Dear Prudence", two is certainly not "several songs". — GabeMc (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also, the article made FA without mentioning that the Beatles achieved 20 US #1s (songs) and 17 UK #1s, which clearly should have been required by FAC 1(b). — GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

More

• "Lennon favoured Allen Klein, who had negotiated contracts for The Rolling Stones and other UK bands during the British Invasion."

Actually, just the Stones, not "and other UK bands during the British Invasion."

• "Aggravated by both McCartney and Lennon, Harrison walked out for a week. He returned with keyboardist Billy Preston, who participated in the last ten days of sessions"

Quintuple whammy, 1) actually, it was five days,(Lewisohn 1992, p. 307) not a week, which is seven days. Encyclopedia's don't round up, do they? 2) the source provided (Harry (2000b) p. 539.) says it was three days, 3) the source provided says, "Paul criticised George's playing and George walked out". Nothing about Lennon "aggravating" Harrison. 4) The source does not say "He returned with keyboardist Billy Preston". 5) Preston participated from 22 January, through 31 January, which is nine days, not ten.(Lewisohn 1992, pp. 309–14.)

• "Harrison's "I Me Mine", was recorded on 3 January 1970"

Actually, they recorded on 4 January as well. (Lewisohn, 1992, p.342)

• "reaching number one in over 35 countries, including the UK and the US. It became the fastest-selling album of all time and the highest-selling of 2000 and of the decade to date.[194]"

The source provided says it was #1 in 28 countries, not 35, also, it does not mention that the record was, "the highest-selling of 2000 and of the decade to date", more WP:OR.

• Per the insistance of many editors to push "skiffle" as an early Beatle influence, it's odd that the FA version of the article mentions no British acts whatsoever, let alone skiffle acts, in the "Influences" section, another failure of FAC 1(b). — GabeMc (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what the point of this odd list is—which, by the way, contains its own glaring errors of interpretation: for instance, "The song is not a rock song, it's folk/pop song." Aside from your grammatical lapse there, GabeMc, the challenged passage makes much the same point: that in the context of the band's career, the song marked a "progression outside the traditional boundaries of rock music." It's baffling that you don't seem to recognize that.

To clarify, how does a pop song push the boundries of rock music? Elvis included pop songs on his albums well before the Beatles ever did, such as "Love Me", from 1956. So are you saying that by including a pop song on Help!, the Beatles were pushing the boundries of rock music? How about "I've Just Seen a Face", from the same album? Or "I'll Follow the Sun" from the previous album? Strings were not new to pop, so this is not a boundry pusher in that regard, and since the song itself does not represent anything new in terms of rock music, please do explain how including a pop song on an album is "pushing the boundries of rock music". — GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We could also observe that GabeMc himself introduced inarguable errors into the article, such as the flat claim that the recording of Abbey Road commenced only in July 1969, when in fact "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" was worked on in February and April. So, some humility, please.

Look, no one's perfect. NO ONE. But the debate here isn't even about getting every last little factual jit and jot right—there's always improvement to be made on that score. It's about broader issues of emphasis and historical context and sensible interpretation of the sources. And the fact is that the version that passed FAC was a collaborative effort that received a lot of scrutiny, while the hundreds of edits GabeMc made this spring were conducted almost entirely without discussion or engaged oversight...with the obvious exception of the condensing of the discussion of the CD releases, an unambiguous improvement whose success is due in large part to the fact that the community was called upon to and did engage with it.

As for the other changes, some were good, some not so good. Let's take the long-standing discussion of how fans responded to "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!", whose deletion (by GabeMc) and restoration (by DocKino) more than anything seems to have set this off: GabeMc is probably correct that the fans were specifically wrong, but that's not a crucial matter—the text, after all, says the fans "speculated." DocKino's understanding of what Gould is saying and its importance in terms of historical context is certainly correct—the Beatles inspired fans to get involved in their lyrics (and, by extension, the lyrics of subsequent "serious" rock bands) in brand-new, even high-brow (or at least aspiring to be high-brow) ways. Yes, that's important. Very much so. That's the sort of insight and contextualization that made this a Featured Article.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good points DCGeist, nobody's perfect. But have you read Page 423 of Gould's book? Are you so sure that "DocKino's understanding of what Gould is saying and its importance in terms of historical context is certainly correct"? Gould does not actually say that this was a notable theory, nor does he provide any notes for it. Main point here, the celebrated Mr.K is clearly Mr. Kite, and even if some fans thought otherwise, it would constitute the fallacy of appeal to anonymous authority, as no evidence is provided that any fan thought Mr. K was Kafka, and really, Gould is not even claiming that outright, it's mentioned hypothetically in his book. — GabeMc (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, the purpose of this list is merely to demonstrate that "it was in the article when it made FA" is not a valid rationale for restoration of dubious, trivial and/or erroneous material. Lennon said several times that he got almost everything from the poster, "Look there's the bill, with Mr. Kite topping it. I hardly made up a word".(Harry, 2000b, p.107) — GabeMc (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, "it was in the article when it made FA" is not a valid argument for restoring a factual error—nothing is. But the passage under consideration here does not, materially, involve a factual error. It involves Gould's so-far-uncontested observation that Beatles fans engaged with Sgt. Pepper's lyrics in a very intense, "cultlike" way (indeed, the probability that they extrapolated fancies way beyond the lyrics' actual content is part of the point); furthermore, their "interpretations and associations...were often treated by deferential adult writers as a form of received wisdom." You seem to want to skirt around that issue by asserting that Gould does not provide "evidence" that any fan thought "X". Gould is cited approximately 90 times in the article—have you actually examined each citation to see whether he provides "evidence" sufficient to satisfy your demands in each and every case? It's easy to see that he goes entire pages without providing a single specific reference. Look, either Gould is a VERY reliable source (90 times!) or he is not. On what basis have you decided to get so anxious about his "evidence" in this specific case?

And again, I must observe that your latest response demonstrates that you're still not getting it. The historically important point is not who Mr. Kite "really" was. The historically important point is what fans made of him. So...you insist on calling Gould into doubt here; have you truly examined every single other citation in the entire article and held it up to the same standard of "evidence" that you're holding this one?—DCGeist (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect DCGeist, I'm not missing the point here, but I think you may be. Do you have Gould's book? You really should read page 423, then tell me Gould is specifically stating that fans thought Mr.K. was Kafka, he doesn't. And FTR, yes, actually I have been through every cite in the article. Can you provide any source other than Gould for this claim? It's contenttious, and I am challenging its inclusion, that's how wikipedia is supposed to work. I'm not suggesting Gould is a poor source that should not be used in general, Harry made several mistakes (like the Beatles jamming with Elvis), yet how many cites to him are there in the article? As far as your assertion that the info does not "materially, involve a factual error", how can you say that for certain, wthout any secondary sources that confirm or deny the Kafka myth? Again, please read Gould page 423 before you defend Doc's interpretation of the page. At any rate, there is a section above dedicated to this specific challenge, and this discussion should be happening there. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

DCGeist: We could also observe that GabeMc himself introduced inarguable errors into the article, such as the flat claim that the recording of Abbey Road commenced only in July 1969, when in fact "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" was worked on in February and April. So, some humility, please.

According to Lewisohn, the sessions that would produce Abbey Road began on 1 July with Paul only, and on 2 July with the other three.(Lewisohn, 1992, p.324) But yes, you are correct to say that the recordings for some songs ("I Want You", "Something") later included on Abbey Road had begun prior to July. However, by this logic then, the sessions for Let it Be actually began on 4 February 1968, when "Across the Universe" was first recorded,(Lewisohn, 1992, p.280) versus "beginning in January 1969", as the article currently states. So you see, I'm not exactly wrong here because Lewisohn says, "There was, at most, only a fine dividing line between the end of sessions for Get Back and the beginning of sessions for what was to become Abbey Road." So what was that again about, "inarguable errors"? When they recorded "I Want You", they did not know what album it would eventually appear on, nor did they even conceive of the album Abbey Road at the time, so how is that recording session the "true" beginning of the Abbey Road sessions by your logic, and how was I wrong to use Lewisohn's July start date for Abbey Road? — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"They have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act."^[2]

Is everyhit.com really a WP:RS? — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to the RSN discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Moog synthesizer in Abby Road under "recording technology"? The Beatles were one of the early users of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.189.214 (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned many times in the Abbey Road article. Are you suggesting that it be added to The Beatles' recording technology, or somewhere in The Beatles article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be just another paranoid Beatleskeptic who believes that the Beatles have been foisted on the public as the pinnacle of popular culture by continuing, unrelenting and unquestioning media hype for the past 48 years -- specifically since August 1963, when Sir Joseph Lockwood, then chairman of EMI, summoned Capitol Records heads to London for a "Please explain" meeting. They were supposed to explain why the Beatles' first four singles released in North America that year had flopped after more than the usual publicity and advertising had been afforded the group. Public apathy to the Beatles was no excuse to Sir Joseph and he ordered Capitol execs to embark on a $50,000 promotional campaign on the Beatles -- precisely 10 times what the previously most expensive artist "launch" had cost the label.

The Beatles article in Wikipedia has many unverifiable and over-the-top praises and superlatives for the group -- which are now not able to be questioned. I can find no facility for editing this article -- i.e. editing links to click on, that apparently all other articles have. Is it official Wikipedia policy that the Beatles' reputation -- which they themselves didn't subscribe to -- is inviolate? Not allowed to even be questioned?

G. A. De Forest author "Beach Boys vs Beatlemania: Rediscovering Sixties Music" (Booklocker.com, 2007)

At most, your view is a tiny fraction of the views about The Beatles. Take a look at the guideline WP:FRINGE to get a sense of how a very minor viewpoint will be treated in the article. Minor viewpoints can and do get described in Wikipedia, probably given more credence here than in the outside world, but they cannot take the place of mainstream views. Wikipedia is not the place for you to change the world. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

For a description of Wikipedia's semi-protection policy, read WP:SEMI. It says you will be able to edit The Beatles' article if you register a username and make ten edits over four days. You will also want to read WP:SELFCITE to see how best to incorporate findings from your book. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from WP:Requests for comment/Request board Coastside (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not read this book but it's possible to read lengthy extracts here: http://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/3210s.pdf

G. A. De Forest is not credible. G. A. De Forest is a fan of The Beach Boys. On his book, "Beach Boys vs Beatlemania: Rediscovering Sixties Music" he wrote approximately : <my favorite band are The Beach Boys so they are the best>. He says things without giving arguments. And sometimes he proves that he is not serious. For example when he is insult The Rolling Stones. He wrote ( page 34 on the link above) : <Lying about their ages to be in step with rebellious teens— Wyman was born in 1937, the same age as the oldest Four Seasons; Jagger as old as Ringo and John but understating his age by three or four years...>

No Mr. G. A. De Forest, Mich Jagger was not as old as John Lennon and Ringo Starr. Lennon and Starr are born in 1940, while Mick Jagger is born in 1943. --Roujan (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a point to this section? 'Cause if there is, I haven't been able to find it anywhere. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Same thought here. I suggest that we all stop feeding the troll and make no further comments in this section. Cresix (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if De Forest's book is not a reliable source, De Forest should feel free to have a civil conversation concerning what he considers the article's "many unverifiable and over-the-top praises and superlatives" on this talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cresix.

You talk about who when you write 'troll'? --Roujan (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not you. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid. Thank you for your response --Roujan (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely billy preston could be added to the related acts... I mean, the Beatles are referred to in Preston's, and Preston played quite a significant role on both the Beatles' last two albums 31.54.111.10 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, since Preston is the only non-Beatle credited on a Beatles album. GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, he is the only artist ever to receive "label billing" ("Get Back") with the band. — GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 Added to infobox. (Thanks for clarifying what I meant, GabeMc.) GoingBatty (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

By now the interest in their lyrics was taking a serious turn. When Lennon's song "Revolution" had been released as a single in August ahead of the White Album, its messages seemed clear: "free your mind", and "count me out" of any talk about destruction as a means to an end.^[3] In a year characterized by student protests that stretched from Warsaw to Paris to Chicago, the response from the radical left was scathing.^[4] However, the White Album version of the song, "Revolution 1", added an extra word, "count me out ... in", implying a change of heart since the single's release. The chronology was in fact reversed—the ambivalent album version was recorded first—but some felt that Lennon was now saying that political violence might indeed be justifiable.^[5]

It seems to me this is excessive detail for this overview article and this material would be better suited at "Revolution". — GabeMc (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly agree. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There's actually very valuable cultural and social context here, though it is devoting a lot of space to one song. I would advocate just focusing on the single that produced a significant response and delete the final two sentences that deal with the minutiae of the album version.

In a similar vein, there is too much detail provided on "Love Me Do":

A 4 September session at EMI yielded a recording of "Love Me Do" featuring Starr on drums, but a dissatisfied Martin hired drummer Andy White for the band's third session on 11 September, which produced recordings of "Love Me Do", "Please Please Me" and "P.S. I Love You".^[6] Initially, Martin selected the 4 September version of "Love Me Do" with Starr on drums for the band's first single, though subsequent re-pressings included the White version, with Starr on tambourine.^[6] Released in early October, "Love Me Do" was a top twenty UK hit, peaking at number seventeen on the Record Retailer chart.^[7]

All that recording and repressing information should be summarized, and we don't need both "top twenty" and "peaking at number seventeen". There's also citation clutter here: three, where one at the end of the passage would clearly do.—DCGeist (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed the "Revolution" discussion along the lines you've suggested, while also improving the chronology. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course, that the "number seventeen" datum makes the more general "top twenty" point redundant, and I've edited it out.

As for the different versions of "Love Me Do", that actually draws a lot of attention in the literature and was a fair addition. I was able to recast some language and trim a little excess verbiage so hopefully it feels less like it's bogging down in minute details, but the basic story here is widely regarded as significant in Beatles historiography. DocKino (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In March, I altered the end of this paragraph to include some of the band members' and George Martin's opinions of the White Album. After the "It's John and the band, Paul and the band..." quote:

McCartney recalled that the album "wasn't a pleasant one to make".^[8] Although Lennon and McCartney praised the quality and variety of music on the album,^[8] Martin believed that it would have been improved by being condensed down to "a very, very good single album".^[9]

Which was later altered to:

McCartney recalled, "it was a very good album ... but it wasn't a pleasant one to make."^[8] Martin argued that a condensed single album would have been "fantastically good".^[9]

Recently DocKino edited it to remove Martin's opinion, and add more emphasis on Lennon and McCartney identifying that as the start of the break-up:

In his view, "We broke up then."^[10] McCartney similarly recalled that the sessions marked the start of the break-up: "Up to that point, the world was a problem, but we weren't."^[11] "It was a very good album", he said, "but it wasn't a pleasant one to make."^[8]

I can see why you'd want the paragraph to flow from "tensions in band—start of the breakup" instead of "tensions in band—opinions of the album". However:

• I think that Martin's comment about how he would've preferred a condensed single album should be mentioned somewhere. It's such a common opinion that has been expressed often enough ever since the album's release (the very start of this discussion comes to mind), that I think it's noteworthy that it's an opinion held by the album's producer.
• Lennon's "We broke up then" is straight to the point, but I'm not really sure what McCartney's quote "Up to that point, the world was a problem, but we weren't" adds. Can't we just say: "Both Lennon and McCartney identified the sessions as the start of the band's break-up", without any quote at all?
• McCartney's full comment on p.310 is "I think it was a very good album. It stood up, but it wasn't a pleasant one to make." If you want to omit "it stood up", shouldn't the omission be indicated with an ellipsis, not just disguised with a mid sentence "he said,"? Also, if you want to move "it" from mid-sentence in the quote to the start of a sentence in the article, shouldn't it be capitalised "[I]t"?

--Nick R^Talk 14:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick R, his version is superior to the restored DocKino version. — GabeMc (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, while "We broke up then" is straight to the point, it's inaccurate hyperbole. I agree with Nick that Doc's addition/restoration/roll-back of the version which includes the McCartney quote lacks direction/meaning. And the lack of ellipses makes me wonder yet again, if Doc even owns the source used to revert to his preferred version, the Beatles Anthology. — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• This also illustrates an ongoing issue here where editors "rollback" the article to their preferred version, often with the rationale of "long-standing content" from three years ago, without discussion, or regard for the intervening efforts of dozens of editors over the years. Perhaps we should ask for an outside admin's opinion on these un-discussed "rollbacks". — GabeMc (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

These sorts of comments (some of which could just as easily be applied to you) are not helpful at all, GabeMc. Every one here is clearly committed to maintaining and improving this article, which has been identified as an example of Wikipedia's best work. Let's focus on the content. To wit...

Nick, on your three bullet points:

• My sense is that the view that the White Album would have been superior as a single LP has probably been expressed often enough that it could warrant mention. But it would be much better if that sort of perspective was ascribed to critics, or the critical community, if possible; bringing in Martin here to express this sort of view doesn't ring right—it makes the observation seem a bit anecdotal and off point.
• I think your idea to ditch the break-up quotes and have a sentence along the lines of "Both Lennon and McCartney identified the sessions as the start of the band's break-up" is a fine one.
• The "he said" ellision is a very common and accepted one in professional journalism and is frequent enough elsewhere, but I agree that in an encyclopedic context, the ellipsis is to be preferred. Here, though, the elided material ("It stood up") is both so minimal and redundant (echoing "It was a very good album") that there's an argument for going with "he said" for readability. (Not saying I necessarily agree with the argument, but I understand it.) As for the traditional fussiness about indicating original capitalization with bracketed interpolations, that is simply on its way out. Except for legal and certain scholarly texts, contemporary style manuals say there's no need for it, and it certainly makes things easier for the reader when we alter capitalization as necessary to make the grammar work without drawing rather uninformative attention to it. (And, mind you, this is a quotation not of a written expression, but an oral one, so the punctuation was a matter of interpretation to begin with.) I was certainly taught to bracket back in the day, so this was a bit of a leap for me. But, at minimal loss to the original author's expressive intentions, it does make for a better reading experience.—DCGeist (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick raises some good points about how to address the presaging of the break-up, which I've made an effort to address in this edit. As for the "better as a single album" business, I believe that's just too hypothetical/counterfactual to merit inclusion in this article that must cover so much ground, and is best handled in the White Album article itself. DocKino (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More arbitrary choices Doc, you do not own this article. I do find it confusing that a direct quote from George Martin you deem, "too hypothetical/counterfactual to merit inclusion in this article", yet you insist on the Kafka nonsense. Seems hypocritical to me. — GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How could I possibly "own" this article, GabeMc, when you so clearly believe that you do?

As for "hypothetical/counterfactual", let me try to explain this complex notion to you, GabeMc, though I feel I've tried very hard to do this already. The opinions about what a single-LP White Album would have been like are opinions about something that never existed--that's very hypothetical/counterfactual. The "Kafka nonsense", as you call it, is employed to provide a specific example of fans' significant behavior in the real world--behavior that, in this case, happened to involve entertaining hypotheses about Beatles' lyrics. DocKino (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's merely Martin's opinion. I'll ask you again, a question you seem to have no answer for, do you have any supporting sources for the Kafka claim, or is Gould the only source that ever claimed this? Harry claims Elvis jammed with the Beatles, should we include that story, well known to be false, refuted by the Threatles, just because a high-quality source states that the jam occurred? — GabeMc (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the assertion that fans speculated about a connection between Mr. K and Kafka "well known to be false, refuted by the Threatles"? DocKino (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, how I read Gould p.423, I think he is generalizing about how fans made wild speculation, then he offeres two off the top of his head, which may or may not be supported by third-party sources. As I keep asking, if the "Kafka as Kite" claim is notable enough for inclusion, speculation or not, then shouldn't it be mentioned in more than just one source to deserve inclusion? Particularly because it is now contentious, and not only in my opinion, others have agreed. — GabeMc (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed DocKino made this edit which I contend. The billion albums claim needs attribution. 1) Guiness gets their numbers from EMI, a primary source, 2) one billion albums would mean they have sold twenty million per year for 50 years, highly unlikely, if not straight-up impossible, at least to unambiguously verify. — GabeMc (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC) For perspective, Thriller has sold around 100 million, in 30 years, which is about 3.33 million per year. So to achieve one billion in sales, the Beatles would have to have out-sold Thriller by a factor of over six to one, however, the Beatles highest seller is The Beatles, at 19X platinum, Thriller is 29X platinum. — GabeMc (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please reread the sentence in question. It does not assert that The Beatles have sold a "billion albums." It says that they have "estimated sales of over one billion units." "Units" are albums and singles. DocKino (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good point, however the source is still EMI, via Guinness and if their three best selling albums are at around 30 million worldwide, and their best selling single around 15 million, then the math still does not add up. If we assume they have around 200 distinct "units", then they need to average 5 million sold per unit, yet they have only released four singles ever that have cracked 5 million in global sales. According to Guinness, they have sold 21 million UK singles, with "SLY" at nearly 2 million being the biggest seller. — GabeMc (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, according to RIAA, last year 247.6 million CDs, singles and EP/LPs were shipped. So that would mean that globally, the Beatles are selling at around 8% of the entire US economy's "unit" sales. Is that possible? — GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything that actually disputes the information? There are plenty of reliable sources that state the claim (citing EMI) so why shouldn't we. Hot Stop 04:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop, I don't dispute the material's inclusion, in fact I am the one who most recently added it (with attribution and sourcing). I am merely arguing that this extremely bold claim needs to be attributed in-line to the source, whichever one is used. — GabeMc (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Having spent a couple days reading in and around the subject, I agree. I believe it's best to attribute the claim to EMI, as Guinness itself and other sources do. I've edited along those lines--take a look. DocKino (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"have held the top spot [in the UK] longer than any other musical act."

This tidbit from the lead is sourced to everyhit.com. It should be removed or properly sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if this datum appears nowhere but on everyhit.com--as a brief survey suggests is the case--it should not be in the lead. DocKino (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor the article body I would add, this is FA afterall. — GabeMc (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that DocKino has changed all the copyright dates for this book from 1992, to 2010, without discussion. Trouble is, the text is copyrighted to Lewisohn 1992, not 2010, which is merely the latest edition of the book, not the copyright date. Doc, do you even own this book? — GabeMc (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The bibliographic reference is to the revised 2010 edition. That is the proper citation. Period.

So, Gabe, do you own all the books cited in the article, or in the Paul McCartney article you're attempting to raise to FA status? DocKino (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do own every single book listed in the McCartney sources, not every in the Beatles, but most, and some that aren't. Is your point that we use the publication date and not the copyright date? For example, MacDonald, 3rd edition, was last copyrighted in 2005, yet the edition was published in 2007? Should cites to MacDonald 3rd edition use the 2007 date of publication, or the 2005 date of copyright? Or, why then is there a "year" and an "edition" field in the cite book template? — GabeMc (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the 2010 edition (Lewisohn) does not state that it's "revised", only that it was published in 2010. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The year of publication of the referenced edition is always the proper date to cite. If the referenced edition is not substantively revised from an original edition, then it is customary to note, in some secondary manner, the publication year of that original edition as well—which is usually (but not always) the original copyright year.—DCGeist (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I almost agree, except instead of "the original copyright year", I suggest the most recent, which is the best indicator of the most recent date in which the text was "substantively revised". — GabeMc (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To materially "agree" (or "almost agree"), first you must understand. The copyright year is never the basis for what is given in the citation or the bibliography. It is always the year of publication. Often the copyright year coincides with that, but it's essentially irrelevant. When composing a citation or a bibliographic entry, provide the year of publication of the edition you are referencing.

P.S. I have corrected the glaring redundancy/error in the latest version of the Lewisohn 2010 bibliographic entry: we don't state that it's a "2010 edition" of a book published in 2010. I gather Doc noticed that the entry had claimed that it was a "revised" edition; now you state that it is not. Well, I'm afraid that's the only sort of information that is suitable for Template:Cite book's edition field: "Revised", "2d", "Enlarged", or similar. (As an aside: Template:Cite book does not have a dedicated field to indicate the original publication date of a book in the event that you are referencing a later edition that is substantively unchanged. It's one of the reasons I avoid using the template in the articles I focus on; template-free, I can provide original publication dates in brackets following the publication date of the referenced edition. But perhaps this is a template that could be directly improved...?)—DCGeist (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The entry only claimed it was a revised edition because Doc, presumably without actually owning a copy, changed it to revised from 2010. — GabeMc (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That didn't sound like something Doc would do, so I did a little research. It didn't take me long to discover that it was YOU who originally identified the 2010 edition as "revised" in the bibliography, here.

This is a very disturbing discovery. I have been trying to warn you that personalizing your disagreements over content was helpful to nobody, and certainly not to the article. Now it seems you are distorting history in your desire to cast blame. There's no excuse for this, but I believe an apology is in order.—DCGeist (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I clearly made a mistake in stating that it was revised, and in assuming that Doc changed it. Call it a brain fart, I certainly wasn't intentionally lying. My bad, I fully apologize to Doc. — GabeMc (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Very good.

Look, both you and Doc are hard-working, conscientious, skilled editors who are a credit to the project. You have different strengths and sensibilities, so it's natural that disagreements will arise. And that's not necessarily a bad thing: from opposing viewpoints, as long as a collaborative spirit is maintained, a superior synthesis can emerge. But shifting from discussion of content to charges, and countercharges, and blame-casting makes that impossible (and, lord knows, I speak from experience). To all involved: remember to assume good faith (really, that should be EASY in this case), and focus on content, content, content.—DCGeist (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for helping DCGeist. I will take all your excellent points to heart. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, while I am sure you and Doc are correct in using the pub date versus the CR date, it is worth noting that almost every book I check indicates the copyright date, but very few contain the publishing date. Just a thought. — GabeMc (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't you find it a bit misleading to use a 2010 date for a book the author has not substantively altered in over 20 years? This could give some readers the impression that Lewisohn recently completed the book, thus it's as up-to-date as almost any source available on the band, which is not actually true (e.g. Spitz, Gould, Harry and Miles). — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No. I do not find it misleading. For two reasons: (1) Providing the date of publication is the professional standard around the world. Anyone who cares about citations can and should be aware of that fact. (2) Even if an edition has not been substantively altered, the all-important pagination may have changed. A proper citation aims at a page. That page MUST be the actual page in the specific edition cited. I hope that is clear.

As for indicating the date when something was actually first copyrighted (and please be aware, THAT date does not always reflect when something was actually written), that's a different issue. As I stated before, in articles on which I focus, I avoid using the cite-book template in part for exactly the reason that it does not facilitate the indication of the year of original publication when a later edition is referenced. Yet many people prefer the cite-book template for its advantages in other areas. Fair enough.—DCGeist (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that ideally both the CR date and the publication date should be mentioned. In the templates I use, you can indeed indicate both, year= most recent CR, edition= most recent publication date. As far as misleading the reader. Look at it this way: as it stands now, a reader of this article would think the Lewisohn book in question was written post-Anthology, when if fact, the text was last CRed pre-Anthology. In short, a reader would think the info was last updated just two years ago, when in fact it hasn't been updated in over 20 years. — GabeMc (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) It doesn't matter what you "can" do with a template if what you are doing is wrong. The "year" field is for the year of publication, not copyright. How many times must I repeat the point that this is the professional referencing standard?

(2) Why, may I ask, have you chosen to rely so heavily on a text that you acknowledge is "over 20 years" old when they have been many high-quality sources published in the field in the intervening years that cover much (if perhaps not all) of the same material?—DCGeist (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Lewisohn is the world's most widely accepted/respected expert on the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

September saw the launch of an American Saturday morning cartoon series, The Beatles, that echoed A Hard Day's Night's slapstick antics over its two-year original run.^[12]

Does anyone else find this trivial and excessive for an overview article that is already quite long? Also, is DocKino's edit summary of "copyedit" accurate? It seems misleading to restore/add details and summarize it as a copy edit. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly "trivial and excessive." How many musical acts had directly inspired a television series to that point in history? I'll try to be more careful to note each and every time I restore a detail that was cut without discussion. DocKino (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Why is it that you can restore material from years ago without any discussion whatsoever, but other editors cannot trim excessive details without discussion/your prior permission, 2) There is no mention of the lunchboxes, dolls and/or the other merchandising efforts that are far more notable than a short-lived cartoon which the band had absolutely no involvement? E.g., does the article mention The Monkees (TV series)? 3) Your edit summaries appear to be intentionally misleading/withholding, I could be wrong, but going through your edits, it becomes clear that you are restoring material sub rosa. At any rate, a much more appropriate place for this trivia is The Beatles' influence on popular culture or The Beatles in the United States. — GabeMc (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"From years ago"? Yes, it was there two-and-a-half years ago when the article achieved FA status, and it was also there a year ago, and it was also there a few months ago before you cut it without discussion. GabeMc, you can and repeatedly do cut anything you like without discussion--just don't get so shocked when it's restored. And do you really believe that what's now just a single well-sourced sentence merits an RfC? Fine, you can RfC anything you like, as well--just don't be surprised if people find that sort of approach a bit...overbearing. As for all the merchandise that's been produced, I'm not opposed to the addition of a well-composed, well-sourced sentence or two on that topic. And as for your personal charges and generally ungracious attitude, I'll do you the favor of not wading in there any deeper with you. DocKino (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems reasonable to link to the TV series somewhere in this article, and the sentence quoted above seems a concise way of doing so. The cartoon series may have been merely a piece of tie-in merchandise, but I disagree that it's as trivial as the toys and lunchboxes: the cartoon series is noteworthy for the fact it led to the production of the Yellow Submarine movie (Brodax, Dunning and Percival worked on both), which currently has a paragraph devoted to it in this article. --Nick R^Talk 16:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick, good point on the shared use of non-Beatles voice over actors. However, I have never really heard of the cartoon outside this article, though I do vaguely remember it. The high-quality sources do not write about it IME, presumably because they do not find it notable enough for inclusion in their books, there are of course exceptions. As I said above, since neither The Monkees, or their TV series are mentioned, does this not then become an issue of WP:UNDUE? — GabeMc (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not a compelling argument to eliminate a single sentence on a TV series depicting the subjects of the article. However, there may be well be a viable case to be made for adding a sentence on the instrumental role A Hard Day's Night played in kick-starting the creation of the Monkees--TV show and band. DocKino (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that my assertion: "The high-quality sources do not write about it", is in your words: "not a compelling argument", yet above you say: "As for the different versions of "Love Me Do", that actually draws a lot of attention in the literature and was a fair addition." Again, not to seem uncivil, but you appear to be contradicting yourself and changing your stance depending on whether or not you prefer the material in question. Can you provide a few examples of high-quality sources currently used to source the article that also cover this cartoon? — GabeMc (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. If you admit that you regularly contradict yourself and change your stance depending on whether or not you prefer the material in question and apologize for accusing me of exactly what you do, I'll consider it. Regards, DocKino (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(31): The audition wasn't in 'early February' but on New Year's Day (1st January). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.95.141 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In November, during one of the band's frequent appearances at the Cavern Club, they encountered Brian Epstein, a local record store owner and music columnist." Complete rubbish.
• "Epstein courted the band over the next couple of months and was appointed manager in January 1962." Epstein had to convince the parents/guardian first.
• After an early February audition, Decca Records rejected the band". This was in 1961, not 1962; before he signed them to a management contract.--andreasegde (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reports circulated the following year that McCartney was hoping to complete "Now and Then", a third Lennon demo worked on during the Anthology sessions. It would be credited as a Lennon–McCartney composition with the addition of new verses, and feature a new drum track by Starr and archival recordings of Harrison playing guitar.[283] In March 2008, Apple Corps sued to prevent the release of another set of recordings made in 1962 during the group's Hamburg Star-Club residency, which the would-be distributor falsely claimed represented Starr's first live performance with the group.[284] That November, McCartney discussed his hope that "Carnival of Light", a 14-minute experimental recording made at Abbey Road Studios in 1967, would receive an official release.[285]

To me, this is all trivial, and a bit crystal ball, afterall, the third demo was never completed, and the "Carnival of Light" never released. The lawsuit is not notable, considering how little detail the article provides about the Beatles' legal disputes with each other, which are breezed over without any detail at all. This was, and still is a great place to trim the already long article. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the sentence on "Now and Then" should be moved to The_Beatles_Anthology#Unreleased_recordings. (Currently, that section only mentions "All for Love" as the potential third new Anthology track, but it could do with a better source.)

I agree with the removal of the "Carnival of Light" sentence. McCartney's 2008 comment "I hope it'll be released one day!" temporarily brought the track back into the news, and I think that update is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the track's own article. However, it's too trivial to mention in this band overview article. --Nick R^Talk 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree that "Now and Then" probably doesn't pass the bar for inclusion here, as it doesn't even exist at this point as a Beatles recording (and arguably never could). I've reverted my restoration of it.

The situation with "Carnival of Light" is significantly different, I believe. This is the major Beatles recording--not an alternative version, not a live version, not a demo version, but a unique composition--that remains unreleased. It still seems quite deserving of a single sentence here. DocKino (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Doc on "COL", and with the current language, so I've removed the RfC tag, as this seems to be resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The grammar in this article sux! Past and present tense are continually switched back and forth in the same sentence, let alone the same paragraph everywhere. Plural verbs are used with singular nouns. In the lede paragraph we have "The Beatles were". "The Beatles" refers to a singular band, no? Many injections of "XXX writes" should be "XXX wrote" used in the same sentence/paragraph with past tense verbs. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"sux"? :)) However, I do agree about the writes/wrote, as it should be the latter. One would never say, "Shakespeare writes".--andreasegde (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And apparently The Beatles were/is construct is an American/British difference. To me ('merican), "The Beatles was" sounds completely wrong, but I understand the alternative. There have been discussions of this in the past. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

clarification: I was keeping the tense the same as the example given. Singular sounds strange, no matter the tense. I am also not arguing against the singular. Its a British band so the article should be in that 'dialect' if that is truly how its done in British English. It just sounds strange (as colour looks strange) to me. But just as 'colour' is not an incorrect spelling for this article, the singular is not poor grammar (as I understand the British rules thereof). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "The Beatles was" is nowhere in the article. Cresix (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it ("The Beatles is") does sound strange to say but think of ths sentence, "The Beatles are a rock group.". How can each Beatle person be a rock group? The correct grammar would be "The Beatles is a rock group." A singular group would be the noun qualifier for a singular verb conjugation. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It comes from "A policeman is here", but, "The police are here", because there is no plural for police. It's the same problem with "team". Google results: "is a rock group", 7,220,000 results, and 16,000,000 results for "are a rock group".--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Iggy Pop are a rock group" or "Wings are a rock group", just don't cut it. Regardless of how it sounds something isn't right with this logic. Some nouns end in an "s" without being plural. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Using "logic" and "English grammar" is an oxymoron, I believe. I suggest you watch this series for further information.--andreasegde (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No wonder English is such a mess and contains so many contradictory rules. Thanks. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems there are two scenarios to this. "The Beatles" can refer to the group, as a singular entity, and thus the sentence, "The Beatles is a rock group", would be grammatically correct. Since each member has become named a "Beatle", "The Beatles" also can refer to multiple people and thus the sentence, "The Beatles are all musicians", would be grammatically correct. The verb needs to match the noun and plurality can only be determined by the context in which the band name is used. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But what about ""XXX writes"?--andreasegde (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is XXX still writing it since 1980? Some grammar expertise would be appreciated here. I don't believe it is correct but not sure of the formal reason. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe "XXX writes" is an Americanism, as one hears "This guy walks in a room" a lot nowadays when listening to Americans describing a film, or telling a joke. If no-one violently disagrees, it is time to correct the Present Simple "writes", to Past Simple "wrote", as this article is in British English.--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:QUOTE

Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Wikipedia policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE).(emphasis added)

~ GabeMc (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Was this paragraph regarding WP:Quote misthreaded, here, (it appears to be misformatted also??) or how is it related to this section's discussion? If related, please supply details of this relationship for clarity of your point. Which quotation(s) are being referred to is not clear. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When an article reads "XXX writes", often that same sentence has also quoted XXX. That's what I meant, not relevant? ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I hear you on the tense thing. But really, why are editors bound to uphold rules of grammar they have never been taught? For perspective, would we allow, or even require southern slang into Elvis Presley's article? Or would we require proper English, regardless of the way Presley himself spoke it. Do we do this for articles on Irish subjects? Wales? Scotland? Does wiki enforce the subtle differences? Namibia versus Sudan versus Congo? French Canadians versus Eastern Canadians. Really, do we force editors to uphold the rules of diction proper to Omaha, Nebraska in the Marlon Brando article? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? I mean, seriously?--andreasegde (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the opening sentence of this article, I wanted to point out my thoughts and the underlying rationale for my edit. The most recent revision (until the one I made today) had displayed poor syntax and a very convoluted, wordy sentence. Although our great language loves to add conjunctions ad infinitum, there remains a need to utilize verbs when it will improve the overall clarity and syntax of a sentence. I definitely adhere to how the sentence is set up in BrE and believe the initial predicate is more than satisfactory. However, something needed to be done about the second part of the opening sentence, after "and." All thoughts, suggestions, and comments are appreciated. Kabek88 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It would have been helpful for you to contribute to the question being discussed.--andreasegde (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Kabek88. It may have been a a bit harsh but... Yes, you are in the right section and right on topic but No, you are in the wrong section as it has become specialized in particulars (??). I find a huge distaste for the really bad grammar in the opening sentence and would start a new section on that first sentence but do not have time right now. Be my guest, if you can't wait. Funny thing is many first sentences in many paragraphs offend this same basic grammar rule. Then we can both bark and squawk like hell! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Beatles were ..." is grammatically correct in British English as an entity such as a "band" is treated as a "collective noun" (a group of people) but in American English a band is treated as a singular noun. This difference is addressed in one of the style policy articles. Afterwriting (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Beatles were ..." is correct in both British English and American English, see American and British English differences#Grammar. Piriczki (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music" 99.251.125.65 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In view of being enlightened to some of the differences in English grammars recently, and rules for the same being defined in WP, I withdraw any complaints regarding the usage of plural verbs with singular nouns. It seems BrE defines a collective group as plural. This makes the fst sentence just fine in my book. The double objective nouns using "and" without a verb is fairly standard and rings fine with my Canuck ears, also. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article covers their break up as well as it might. Certainly it deserves to have its own sub-heading and there's a lot of commentary that could be referred to, for example, relating to Yoko's influence.Obscurasky (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(w/tongue in cheek) I would tend to agree, and would usually be more than willing to put in the effort to improve this aspect of the article, but uncertainty about other editors "restoring" to a previous/preferred version makes me a bit aprehensive about putting in several hours work that may well be removed due to a "long-standing" version that is not to be altered without prior permission. — GabeMc (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, well I've done it myself anyway. There were many reasons why the group broke up and it's pretty obviously wrong for the topic to be lumped in with 'Abbey Road and Let It Be'. Nothing controversial about my edit - and no reason I can see why it should be reversed. Obscurasky (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see that having a dedicated section summaring the reasons for the break-up would have some benefits, but overall I disagree with its addition for several reasons:

• Sections 1 to 4 of this article are in purely chronological order (it's only with section 5, "Musical style and development", that we bring together stuff from all over their career), and that pattern is broken if you add a break-up section within section 3.
• Adding such a section would only duplicate material that's already mentioned in the main chronology.
• Although I can't find a page where it's specified, AFAIK single-paragraph sections are discouraged at Wikipedia. In order to be worth adding, the section would need to be expanded by a couple more paragraphs.
• At the moment, the reasons for the break-up are mentioned as they come up in the main chronology, and the full article The Beatles' break-up is linked to both in the lead section ("After their break-up in 1970...") and in the History of The Beatles template at the start of the 1957–1962 section. I think that prominent links to that dedicated article are preferable to a new section that breaks the chronology and duplicates content from elsewhere. (In my opinion, the only big advantage of having this new section is that it gives us an excuse to use a Main article: or Further information: template to link to The Beatles' break-up.)

I've noticed an inconsistency that's come up with the addition of this section: the section "Abbey Road and Let It Be" mentions 10 April as the date of McCartney's announcement (citing Lewisohn and Spitz), and the article McCartney (album) gives the same date; whereas this new section and The Beatles' break-up specify 9 April, citing an online fansite version of the "self-interview". Maybe the difference in dates is because one is the date the Q&A/press release was carried out and typed, and the other is the date the pre-release copies of the album were sent out to critics?

--Nick R^Talk 11:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

While I do accept that the events surrounding the break-up can't be both 'chronologically slotted' and 'grouped together' at the same time, the break-up itself is too significant not to be referred to in its own section. The article The Beatles timeline already exists and I think it would be a real pity if the ability of this article to cover such topics is compromised because of a slavish adherence to chronology.Obscurasky (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick R. The addition of such a section, on balance, would not be a good idea. Don't break the chronology.—DCGeist (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see my edit has been reversed by DCGeist. To repeat what I said before; there were many reasons why the group broke up and it's pretty obviously wrong for the topic to be lumped in with 'Abbey Road and Let It Be' - actually, to be frank, it's a blatant flaw in the article. The subject is clearly of significance and deserves to be covered properly, in its own right.Obscurasky (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• While I agree in principle that the chrono should not be broken at 1970 (if we can help it), I also think Obscurasky makes a valid point. How can a comprehensive article on The Beatles not include a summary of the causes of their break-up? If a reader came here to discover what caused them to split, they would not find anything close to an appropriate summary of the root causes. That sub-articles exist is not a strong rationale for avoiding details here. For example, we summarize all their albums, and many of their songs, though indeed sub-pages exist for these as well. Specifically, we are currently discussing inclusion of the "Mr. Kite is Kafka" myth, despite several editor's opinions that the material belongs either at the song's page, or the album page, if anywhere. Afterall, why is it not enough to just mention Sgt. Pepper, and link to the sub-page which should contain all the exhaustive details? Often on wikipedia, what material is essential to the main article and what material should be "farmed out" to sub-articles is highly subjective. For example, the article currently dedicates three sentences w/quotes to the Let It Be movie, no longer in print, and only two sentences to their break-up. Question What is the most notable event/aspect of 1970 in regards the Beatles? Some detail could be mentioned in a note, but the last time I attempted to introduce a note section I was stopped. — GabeMc (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Obscurasky: I'm afraid not. The story of Let It Be and Abbey Road is interwoven with the band's breakup. What would be a blatant flaw would be to shatter the chronology.

GabeMc: Actually, the article already includes quite a bit of information about the tensions that led to the band's breakup: John's loss of interest in collaborating with Paul and his "granny music"; his insistence on having Yoko in the studio; the dispute over the managerial selection. There's also the description of Harrison's and Starr's personal aggravations and walkouts, and Lennon not even wanting his songs on the same side of Abbey Road as McCartney's. What vital point is missing?—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What information there is, on the topic, only appears in a disparate and disconnected fashion. The event is too significant to be covered like that.Obscurasky (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and expound with verbosity below. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DCGeist, good points all. Look at it this way, if a reader of wikipedia wanted to know why they broke up, they would have to read/scan the entire article and they would also need to read between the lines a bit, then yeah, they might understand that they didn't get along so well generally toward the end, but wouldn't that be implied in any band who breaks-up? "What vital point is missing?" 1) McCartney's controlling nature regarding their musical collaboration, 2) Yoko wasn't just there, she gave creative advice, e.g. "Beatles try this, Beatles try that", 3) Macca was pushing for a tour 4) Lennon's Plastic Ono Band efforts, currently mentioned only in passing 5) Epstein's death, though summarized in general, and indicated as a turning point, does not tell the reader who "picked-up the slack" afterward (e.g. Paul and Aspinall). As the article currently reads, they had a manager, then he died, and then they went on. It does not explain who took care of Epstein's duties post-mortem. Which is actually more of a cause then Epstein's death, who wasn't the best, and had made several crucial mistakes. In theory they could have found someone even better than Epstein, reducing their stress, instead of taking so much on themselves. 6) While we mention that Harrison was getting annoyed, the article does not explain that he was also being ignored and stiffled creatively as well, a much more crucial point. 7) Apple Corps is also mentioned only in passing, and not at all as a major factor to their stress at the end of the 1960s. 8) Drug/alcohol abuse. 9) Marriage/children. 10) Creative dissonance. The lack of collaboration, Abbey Road and "granny music" bits do not cover it, John and Paul were not only not getting along personally, they were moving in fundementally different musical directions, which caused significant dissonance between them. There may be more. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If a reader is specifically interested in the breakup, without learning about the band's whole history, that reader's in luck: we've got a whole article devoted to their narrow interest! As for the preceding list, I could see adding to this summary overview article the two or three most salient points in terse fashion at appropriate points in the chronology.—DCGeist (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Which specific points would you support adding to this summary overview article? — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Referencing your list, items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are all touched on sufficiently in the context of this summary overview article. Item 3 is relatively minor and far from unique to the Beatles. If there is something enlightening that can be stated succinctly about items 1, 7, and 10 that could be worthwhile—1 and 10 might well be combined, in fact.

But honestly, the focus is all wrong here. Wikipedia presents a massive article on the Beatles because of their musical and cultural significance—the etiology and manner of their breakup really doesn't educate us much about that significance. More important, I believe, is understanding where they came from. There's nothing in the article about their socioeconomic background, nothing about the Liverpool milieu from which they hailed—that's much more important to understanding where they fit and from where they evolved. (That lack is especially surprising given that a fair amount of space is devoted to a quote describing the Hamburg red-light district, which sounds like any other typical red-light district around the world. Why is that a good use of space?) Beginnings, not endings, are what needs more attention here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to change the focus - and in any case who says the article exists only to educate readers on the band’s musical and cultural significance? Many readers will have a more general interest in the band's 'history' and the break-up is unquestionably a very significant event in the history of The Beatles. It troubles me that the focus of the article actually seems to centre around its format (we can't break the chronology!) and that it is this which is dictating whether or not a section on the break-up should be included. Obscurasky (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Obscurasky. Their break-up deserves its own sub-section. Afterall, we have a sub-section on "Events leading up the the final tour". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article contains seventeen occasions of "the Beatles" (without a capital) and is inconsistent with the majority of spellings in this article. There should be no question on this issue after so much WP discussion, in the past, regarding proper spelling of the band name. Template:The Beatles and Portal:The Beatles/Intro are templates that establish standards for the band name to be used in WP with a capital "The". WP:MoS definitely contains some self-contradicting statements regarding spelling issues. Regardless of this separate MoS issue, a standard has been established for this band's name and it needs to be followed here and every article mentioning "The Beatles". 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

1) WP:Lame! 2) You should look above at what the current consensus here is, it is not what you apparently think. It's time to move on. MoS is not a slave to trademarks, or we could never capitalize adidas, could we? ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting the meaning of your last statement regarding addidas. I see nothing here. WP:Mos contradicts itself on trademarks and no spelling is correct by one of the clauses if a trademark starts with a lowercase letter. I wonder how they can force capitalize a numeral? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

On adidas, their official logo is all lower-case. So if what you are saying is true, then the following sentence is incorrect: "Adidas was founded in 19XX." By your logic we would need to write: "adidas was founded in 19XX". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

adidas seems very consistent about always using lower case in prose, even at the beginning of a sentence. (e.g. http://www.adidas-group.com/en/pressroom/archive/2012/27June2012.aspx ) GoingBatty (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And what has that to do with anything here?--andreasegde (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply that "adidas" is an example where Wikipedia's MoS is different from the company's MoS. GoingBatty (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also iPod, iPhone, iPad and eBay. How would you start a sentence with them without breaking either our MoS or incorrectly transcribing their trademarks? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your exact examples using "iPod" and "eBay" are covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks and should be posted exactly to satisfy both the manufacturer's logo and our MoS. I have reported this to you previously on each article's talk page but you continue to use dirty politics to avoid collaboration with other editors. What MoS are you choosing this time? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states:

|Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:

avoid: EBay is where he bought his IPod.

instead, use: eBay is where he bought his iPod.

and

Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking now. You cannot cite the MoS to defend your position whilst stating that the same MoS is incorrect in its prescription to use "the" in the specific case of the Beatles. Yes, there are some apparent contradictions in the MoS that should be fixed. Perhaps this discussion should be occuring at the MoS talk page. Since local consensus is just that, local, and not binding to related pages. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

99, I would strongly advise against any crusading on this issue, no matter how pure your intentions might be. First off, as far as I can tell, the previous discussions and the consensus achieved therein were primarily concerning this article, so your attempt to apply said consensus wholesale at Paul McCartney (in the middle of a major FAC, no less) is misguided in the extreme, in my opinion. Furthermore, this is a disagreement that was listed at WP:Lamest edit wars. None of the links you posted are policy, and as such are subject to application via consensus. While there was a consensus in the past, the fact that this debate made it to the aforementioned list had a significant chilling effect on anyone ever wanting to go through it again. Even though consensus can change, by my reckoning we have had a consensus by silence for quite some time to the effect that we should all just let it be (pun intended). Consensus at different articles can dictate which captialisation scheme should be used, on an article by article basis. There is no policy or guideline that says any different. Please, drop the stick. For all our sakes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Can you point me to some consensus discussion regarding this point? I haven't found any details yet. The only things I have found appear to result in the templates I have indicated which seem to dictate this is the way it should be done. It just hasn't been done yet as perhaps the involved parties may be fairly raw from the lengthy irritation as you seem to indicate. WP:MoS contradicts itself on this matter and either spelling would violate one of it's clauses. Perhaps it suffers the same fatigue as this issue. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This edit by the same ip makes this whole thread suspect. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspect of what? Please do not be presumptious and observe WP:Assume good faith. I understand this road has been long for you, but please observe WP:Ownership rules to improve this article. Basic good grammar is a prerequisite for readers to have faith in WP. Ridicule and sidetracking, at any level, are not productive for that end. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that Evanh2008 and GabeMc drop the stick right now. This is only an effort at article ownership; you have totally disregarded and misinterpreted the discussions on this topic (because they occurred before you came to Wikipedia?) and badgered and harassed any one who tries to adhere to established precedent. There really doesn't need to be any further discussion unless the stated purpose is to try to change consensus. Any more reverting of "The Beatles" to "the Beatles" will go to WP/ANI. Radiopathy •talk• 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And so say all of us.--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm calling your bluff, Radio. You're accusing me of ownership when the most significant change I have made to this article in the past four months has been the addition of a comma. You've already gone to my talk page to accuse me of wikihounding you. As far as I can tell, you're inventing this fictitious scenario in an effort to shut me up. But I'm not going to play your game. If you want to see me me censured for something, take it to WP:AN/I. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it. I have no stick to drop, so maybe you should consider checking the facts and taking a long, serious moment to think about it before you make any more unfounded accusations. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you had better double-check what the current consensus here is, right now, which is, "Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal", not to avoid usage of "the Beatles", so if you want to revisit that old boring arguement feel free, and good luck gaining a consensus. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have tooted this before but I still see no discussion, consensus, or reference link to any discussion, as I requested. I would like to examine this discussion/consensus so that I may be informed or where not to go or spend effort. So far I have only been informed of boogiemen hiding and waiting for me if I say the forbidden words. Inform me. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anon 99, I believe the consensus to which Gabe refers is the one linked near the top of this talk page: Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#Triangular diplomacy. But I sincerely hope you will not dredge up this perennial and silly issue for the umpteenth time. Cresix (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, and I'll toot it again. Look at the top of this talk page, it reads "Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal." This consensus was implemented nearly 18 months ago by andreasegde. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The agreement looks pretty simple even though I believe all the arguments missed the boat. I believe I have explained both uses as being correct depending on the different scenarios of text. "The Beatles" referes to the group as a single entity and "the Beatles" refers to all the group members as a plural entity. I hate the answer but can live with it, now that it is visible to me. It would have been much easier to explain this in one sentence than attempting all the WP:Lawyering that was starting. Thanks for the lessons. The mixing of plural and singular tenses is still really bad grammar and will be kicked hard by every English grammar student that passes by for all time. Some of the sentences are attrocious. Another section heading perhaps? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this as simply as I can. Leave it alone. Whatever you believe is naught compared to the hundreds of posts detailing ferocious arguments about both by many, many editors over many, many years.--andreasegde (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wel I guess that their is an admishion the WP system don't work none too good in this Case and has a bad grammars (and grampars) as an easy to identitee mark left as a warning to all y'all that there read it. It will becomes instantly clar that WP is written by intellignarents that just plain don't give no carein to new reedars. That definitely wood be the quality I would wanna put my name on as part off. Those of y'all that jus wanna stop changes, as a controle think can do yur bess cause I knows all ya'll enjoy gettin another one band as a personell power and eghost trip. Y'all come byak now. I knows ya will. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Very, very silly. Never forget the phrase, "Out of the pram, your toys, throw, don't".--andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, very interesting. For anyone here wanting to peruse the thoughts of a certain editor, they should read this post. Apparently, Wikipedia "is run by a Nazi-like regeim [sic] of mostly snotty-nosed nerdpaks". Interesting, to say the least, for anybody sunning themselves on Wasaga Beach. :))--andreasegde (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please attempt to stay on topic and further WP quality of this article and all articles. Your use of racial amd offensive terms does not meet WP standards and could injure our reputation in future endevours. Your sidetrack of the issues being discussed here, i.e. bad grammar usage in the article, is not productive. The ad hominem implication via your phraseology is not appreciated. Thanks for the hints and tips on articles at a sensitive stage Yeah, I missed the ASCII hieroglyphs. ;-P 99.251.125.65 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I bet this would be a much more fun conversation on The The. (or is it "the The" or "the the"?) If it's "Beatle Paul McCartney", is it then "The Matt Johnson"? :-) Seriously though, there are lots of areas where we can improve Beatles-related articles. If we were to prioritize all the to-dos, I hope that further "The/the" discussion would be low on the list. Let's keep editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nicely done User:Andreasegde! Appreciate the edits very much! Only two other occurences of this under Influences and Legacy paragraph headers. One definately refers to the band name but the other could refer to the individual people in the band and is fine the way it is stated. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I like ducks. No, not the little plastic yellow ones.--andreasegde (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved opinion on this dispute over whether to include this possibly dubious claim that Mr. K is/was a reference to Kafka, and/or is this likely erroneous claim notable enough for inclusion in this overview article. — GabeMc (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no debate that fans' speculation that Mr. K was a reference to Kafka was probably erroneous--indeed, that's part of the point. This instance of fans' speculation is provided as an example of fan behavior and engagement with Beatles lyrics. That is the basis for its inclusion and the basis on which comment is appropriate. DocKino (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper was the first major pop/rock LP to include its complete lyrics.^[13] Those lyrics were the subject of intense analysis; fans speculated, for instance, that the "celebrated Mr K." in "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" might in fact be the surrealist fiction writer Franz Kafka.^[14]

1) This is trivia, that perhaps belongs at "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" or the Sgt. Pepper article if anywhere, but not here, 2) it's inaccurate speculation by Gould anyway, Mr. Kite was certainly not Franz Kafka, Kite is mentioned by name on the 1843 circus poster that inspired the song.(MacDonald, 2005, pp.237–238) — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly agree again! HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with what? Please reread the source so you can properly comprehend it: It's not Gould that "speculates" that Mr. Kite was Franz Kafka. He's describing something fans read into the song, as an example of the intense analysis the album as a whole prompted among fans—the sort of thing we may take for granted now but which was then virtually unprecedented and thus noteworthy. Whether the fans were right or (probably) wrong, their unusual level of intellectual engagement is an important historical fact about the album and its reception. That's why the passage was in there when the article achieved FA status, and that's why I've restored it. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That it was included when the article made FA is irrelevant. I imagine I could find several things that should not have been included. If it's important, then it should be at the Pepper page, or the "Mr Kite" page. Also, I disagree that the "intense analysis" is notable in and of itself. Many band's lyrics are analyzed by fans and critics, this is not unique to Pepper or the Beatles. Bottom line, that Gould cites fans who were wrong does not make this appropriate for inclusion. There is no "Paul is dead" section for example. — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's very relevant that it was included when the article made FA. That version was heavily vetted by multiple Wikipedians. Your undiscussed edits have not been. You've also (perhaps willfully) missed the point that I tried to articulate very clearly for your benefit: Yes, now "many band's lyrics are analyzed by fans and critics", but that was not true then. Sgt. Pepper was precedent-setting in that regard, particularly in how significant the lyrics were understood to be. Bottom line, Gould is describing a historical turning point that affected how popular music fans would appreciate and understand the objects of their affection for decades after. The comparison to the "Paul is dead" urban myth is entirely off point. DocKino (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Per: "Yes, now "many band's lyrics are analyzed by fans and critics", but that was not true then."

Do you have sources to back this claim up? Are you saying no fans or critics analyzed the lyrics of Bob Dylan prior to 1967? — GabeMc (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read page 423 of Gould's book? Gould does not actually say that this was a notable theory, nor does he provide any notes for it. Main point here, the celebrated Mr.K is clearly Mr. Kite, and even if some fans thought otherwise, it would constitute the fallacy of appeal to anonymous authority, as no evidence is provided that any fan thought Mr. K was Kafka, and really, Gould is not even claiming that outright, it's mentioned rhetorically/hypothetically in his book. He also says that this intense anaylsis of lyrics started prior to Pepper, with earlier Beatles songs, and as I said above, Bob Dylan. — GabeMc (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've read page 423 of Gould's book, among many other pages. Thanks for asking.

I've edited the sentence to make clear that fan's speculations were "often fanciful." In brief, it provides a memorable, specific, useful example of the sort of engagement that Poirier describes in more general terms in the following two sentences. The source is Gould, whom we have accepted as a very high quality source. Your insistence that Gould might not be saying what he's clearly saying--which is that fans speculated that "Mr. K" might be Franz Kafka--but is rather for some reason willy-nilly hypothesizing that himself, is very odd; if we knew Gould to do that sort of thing, he wouldn't qualify as a very good source at all. In sum, you have articulated no basis for doubting his statements in this case, so I feel we can move on. DocKino (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I just meant that all Gould says is, "Did the celebrated "Mr.K" refer to Franz Kafka?" Hardly an unambiguous statement that fans speculated as much. I'll ask again, is there any other source for this claim? — GabeMc (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

McCartney: "and it said, 'being for the benefit of Mr. Kite', almost the whole song was written right off this poster." (Miles, 1997, p.318) "No, Mr.Kite. is a fictitious character, we made him up ... We wrote it actually off a circus poster and it's a fictitious name." (Miles, 1997, p.332) George Martin: "[Lennon would] say, for example on 'Mr. Kite', 'This song's about a fairground ... I want to get the feeling of the sawdust and the feel of the ring'".(Coleman, 1992, p.369) "'Mr. Kite' was taken straight from an antique circus poster, which John transposed".(Coleman, 1992, p.540) Lennon: "Look there's the bill, with Mr. Kite topping it. I hardly made up a word".(Harry, 2000b, p.107) — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of this claim. If you look at the poster here [1] (and John pictured with a copy of the poster here [2]), you'll see that the above description (of everything being on the poster) is correct ... "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," "Pablo Fanque," "Henderson," "trampoline," "Over men and horses, hoops, and garters, lastly through a hogshead of real fire." The song lyric "Messrs. K and H assure the public ..." must certainly refer to the aforementioned Kite and Henderson, as they are addressed that way multiple times in the song ("And Mr. H will demonstrate ten somersets ..."). The Kafka reference makes no sense and we have no reliable sources to support this hypothesis. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I could go on. The poster says "Mssrs. KITE and HENDERSON, in announcing the following Entertainments ensure the Public that this Night's Production will be one of the most splendid ever produced in this Town, having been some days in preparation." In the song lyrics, this becomes "Messrs. K and H assure the public their production will be second to none. [snip] Having been some days in preparation, a splendid time is guaranteed for all." Practically every word of the song has this same pattern.John has never claimed, nor is there any evidence for the idea that, something besides the poster contributed to the song lyrics. I don't think this claim deserves any credence. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course I agree 100%, and suggest "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" as a much better example from this era of fans analysis of the Beatles lyrics, which could actually be sourced to several WP:RSs, versus Gould's vague, unsupported and unsourced claim. — GabeMc (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You should be aware that Gould is a reliable source. Suggesting improperly that he is not does not help your case.—DCGeist (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a couple fo things come to mind here. First of all, I think we are a little bit jaded as editors in the current age; Sgt. Pepper was an album that completely changed the landscape of rock as it was known at the time. It was a concept album on par with a traditional opera. Almost everything in it was ground-breaking. Add to that the time in which it was released - it was the beginning of the Hippie movement wherein little made sense to the disillusioned young people in the aftermath of the 50's. The album was something they could look to that could provide meaning to it all.

Unfortunately, sometimes those meanings and interpretations, though plentiful, went very far afield. That there were such is both notable. Illustrating any one of them is to offer any one theory a preference that belongs only in the song article itself. Not the main article. Even with citations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But the presentation clearly does not offer the "Kafka theory" a preference—it is presented as a signal example of those interpretations. That it does, indeed, go rather far afield is part of what makes it a good example. The high-quality source adduced obviously agrees that it serves as a good example of the interpretive engagement it inspired. Just from the standpoint of good writing and narrative building, an example is certainly called for here. GabeMc's suggestion that "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" (and presumably the "LSD theory") is a "much better example" is a mixed bag: yes, it's a more famous example, but it's also rather redundant of the "Norwegian wood"/"cannabis theory" discussed earlier in the article. What makes the "Kafka theory" particularly useful in this context is it demonstrates were now reading (or attempting to read, depending on how you define such things) "deep" topics into Beatles songs. I see the other example Gould references is the "A Day in the Life"/"suicide theory." That's a viable alternative, but still not as revealing as the "Kafka theory" example.—DCGeist (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A key point that is being completely ignored here is whether or not DocKino and DCGeist's interpretation of Gould's page 423 is even accurate to what the author is attempting to convey. Does Gould categorically say that this was indeed a known fan theory? If so where? Or is he speculating hypothetically about fan's ridiculousness while asking a rhetorical question? If the Kafka example is such a good one, then why is Gould the only source (that I know of anyway, and indeed no one has offered another)? — GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any alternative to the observation that you are either being (a) deliberately misleading or (b) extravagantly forgetful in making your emphatic claim that a "key point...is being completely ignored here." See, for instance, the comment I made on June 10 above: "Your insistence that Gould might not be saying what he's clearly saying--which is that fans speculated that 'Mr. K' might be Franz Kafka--but is rather for some reason willy-nilly hypothesizing that himself, is very odd; if we knew Gould to do that sort of thing, he wouldn't qualify as a very good source at all." DocKino (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So why not quote the Gould text that actually says fans thought Mr. Kite was Kafka? Seems like an easy way to prove your point. — GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because we don't manipulate and encumber the article to "prove points", GabeMc, that's why. Gould's meaning here is clear and his status as a high-quality source is settled. As I wrote before, "you have articulated no basis for doubting his statements in this case." DocKino (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gould states it in a hypothetical/rhetorical manner, not as a statement of fact. For example, Gould does not say, "Fans speculated that Mr. Kite was Kafka", what he actually writes is, "Did the celebrated "Mr. K" refer to Franz Kafka?" A question, not a statement. — GabeMc (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here it is in context:

Within weeks of its release, the album had become the subject of a cultlike body of lore that was widely shared by Beatles fans. Did the celebrated "Mr. K" refer to Franz Kafka?

This is an example of the outcome of a process known as writing. We make the obvious connection between sentence 1 and sentence 2 through a process known as reading. DocKino (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I can tell by your incivility and insulting approach that you are losing this arguement. Lets just get an outside admin to sort some of these disagreements out shall we. Such as your use of "rollback" to restore your perferred content. — GabeMc (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to hear that you care so much about civility, GabeMc, as you have been characterizing my edits in an uncivil and insulting manner here for well over a week now. And you did this despite having enjoyed the fruits of my editorial labor on the McCartney FAC, which you had requested. DocKino (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll be more careful, as I certainly do not want to be uncivil to anyone. As far as, "And you did this despite having enjoyed the fruits of my editorial labor on the McCartney FAC", 1) You have made only 12 edits lifetime at Paul McCartney, 2) You have made only one comment at the FAC, which resulted in a talk page contention thirty-hours later. — GabeMc (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with GabeMc regarding where this info should be placed. It does not belong here but should be at the "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! article. However, it was not Gould who was speculating, but fans - Gould simply documented it. NOTE: My statement here is not part of the uncivil argument between GabeMc and DocKino above. Both of them need to calm down, assume good faith, and be civil. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with GabeMc and RedSoxFan2434. Put this Kafka info, reasonably trivial speculation in my view, in the song article, if at all. A note that author Gould speculated to that effect is enough. As a old Beatle fan I don't believe I have ever heard of this Kafka theory. John always said he wrote 'Mr. Kite' off the vintage poster, and I understood Mr. K to mean Kite. Jusdafax 07:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also, it this not a WP:UNDUE issue? To present to readers that Beatles fans made up wacky speculation paints their fans as kinda looney IMO. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• FTR, this issue also came up at the article's succsessful FAC. The issue was raised by an oppose !voter for the same reasons I have raised it here. DocKino was the only FAC commentor who pushed for its inclusion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've deleted this trivial and erroneous datum. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This dispute is self-explanatory I believe. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"described by cultural historian Saul Austerlitz as "among the first true music videos".[154]"

1) this is not at all accurate, there were a multitude of "true" music videos made 35–40 years earlier, 2) "among the first true" is fancruft, it was better when we had Harrison claiming the "PW/R" promo films were a forerunner of MTV. — GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The quotation is from Austerlitz's book on the history of the music video, issued by the well-regarded academic publishing house Continuum. He is a much better source for this sort of cultural history observation than is Harrison. DocKino (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Harrison's quote was much more accurate, and informed the reader that he thought so, versus that it was so. It really does not matter who you are if your words are untrue, does it? Austerlitz is flat wrong, so who cares about how prestigious he and his book are? — GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the question of what sort of connection there is between the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" promos and modern music videos is a matter of cultural history (overlapping here with aesthetic and industrial history). Harrison is not a cultural historian, and his passing comment is of scant relevance. We look to historians and critics to draw these sorts of connections. Austerlitz has authored one of the very few histories of the music video to be issued by a serious publisher. That's why we care about who he is. He, as much as anyone, qualifies as an expert on the history of the music video. Harrison does not.

On what reliable source do you base your claim that Austerlitz is "flat wrong"? We'd want to see a historian or critic describing those short films "made 35–40 years earlier" as music videos in the modern sense to even accept that there is an intellectual controversy over the matter. DocKino (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you are adding "in the modern sense" to the actual quote in question: "among the first true music videos". However, does Austerlitz in fact use those terms "in the modern sense" in his book, specifically about the "PW/R" promos? Second, "on what reliable sources" you ask, well in Austerlitz's book of which we are speaking he calls the Beatles "innovators" of and their musical films "precursors"; "groundwork".(p.17-18) Also, in context what he actually writes of the "PR/R" promos is that they are "among the first true music videos because of their underlying logic" Underlying logic? An embarrasing mix of pseudo-intellectualism and fancruft, "so that they looked super cool" his rationale. On page 13 Austerlitz calls Fischinger's early 1930s films "proto-music videos." And he mentions that Jim Farber calls Fischinger's sequence "Toccata in Fuge" from Fantasia (1940) the first "long form music video". Please read page 12 of his book then tell me Austerlitz isn't giving earlier creds to the work done in the 1930, 40s, and 50s and that he is really giving the "modern sense" application credit to the Beatles? If so, on which page please so that we can discuss? On page 17 he describes Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock" (1957) sequence as a "proto-video". — GabeMc (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. It's settled. Austerlitz is accepted as an expert on the history of music videos. The quote stands. We are done here. DocKino (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Prestigious beats wrong every time here – verifiability, not truth is what's important. joe•roe^t•c 12:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Joey, the wiki policy you referenced above also says: "The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight ... That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability." So really, that the words, "among the first true music videos" appear in Austerlitz's book, does not satisfy the policy in and of itself. The statement is taken out-of-context and the source in question does indeed give much earlier credit to others in regard to "music videos" (see my comments above, and perhaps read a page or two of the book in question). ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not self explanatory. As i understand it one attributed view has been substituted for another contradictory quote. It would seem to make sense to include both, and let them argue with each other. That said, a concise explanation would help a lot in understanding what the RFC is about.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Give all views, attributing each view to the source presenting it. Let readers make any other decisions. "Music video" in the sense of "video made for promotion of sales of a piece oof recorded music" seems nicely inapplicable to Fantasia, IMO. Collect (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that we step back from the issue and try to get some perspective. First, I would ask about the importance of the claim. If the claim of being "among the first" is important and notable, then it should stand only if there's verifiable citation to a reliable source. Period. Those are the guidelines, and content inclusions that are based on "common knowledge" (which isn't usually that common), or original research or some vague recollection shouldn't be allowed to stand. If there are verifiable sources (remember, they do NOT need to be available online, they just need to be reasonably available to editors who'd like to find them), then the claim should stand. If not, I think it needs to come out. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)